Thursday, June 07, 2007

Senate Bill 16

The Ohio General Assembly approved Rep. Lou Blessing's (R-Colerain Twp.) watered down version of Senate Bill 16, and Governor Strickland let it become law without his signature.

Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks calls Governor Strickland's action "a mistake." I'm not so sure. I would have liked to have seen the governor stand up to the CCV and their porn-addicted ayatollah, but I think the governor's action here was understandable. The bill passed by veto-proof majorities in both houses. It probably wouldn't have been good for the governor if this had been his first veto override.

At The Audient Files, Audient points out a hilarious loophole in the new law:

(1) No patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family shall knowingly touch any employee while that employee is nude or seminude or touch the clothing of any employee while that employee is nude or seminude.

(2) No employee who regularly appears nude or seminude on the premises of a sexually oriented business, while on the premises of that sexually oriented business and while nude or seminude, shall knowingly touch a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or the clothing of a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or allow a patron who is not a member of the employee's immediate family or another employee who is not a member of the employee's immediate family to touch the employee or the clothing of the employee.

That's right. The law specifically exempts incestuous touching between exotic dancers and customers. Those Republicans with their family values!

I think the interest groups who opposed S.B. 16 should go for a referendum to overturn it. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 45% of Ohio voters supported the original version of S.B. 16 while 46% opposed it. In a referendum, a yes vote would be required for the new law to take effect, and undecided voters tend to vote no on ballot issues. It probably would be possible to swing public opinion against the new law by pointing out the incest exemption, and the possible proliferation of adult entertainment into residential neighborhoods. A referendum would be expensive, requiring over 241,366 signatures* to get on the ballot, but if opponents can afford it, they stand a good chance of winning.

*I think I figured that correctly. The Constitution requires signatures from 6% of voters to get a referendum on the ballot, and the secretary of state reports that 4,022,754 voters voted in last year's gubernatorial election. 6% of 4,022,754 is 241,366.